Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14

[Leeyoung <[e-mail]>]

Hi Dan,

Thanks a lot for your review and providing comments. 

Would the following work for you in Security Section to add:

"Solutions that address the requirements in this document need to verify that existing PCEP security mechanisms adequately protect the additional network capabilities and must include new mechanisms as necessary."

Best regards,
Young

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Harkins [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:04 PM
To: [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: secdir review of draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength-14


  Hello,

  I have reviewed draft-ietf-pce-wson-routing-wavelength as part of the security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily for the benefit of the security area directors. Document editors and WG chairs should treat  these comments just like any other last call comments.

  This is a requirements document for additions to the PCEP protocol to support path computation in a wavelength-switched optical network. It describes what needs to be added to requests/responses to support routing and wavelength assignment to a path computation element (that supports both functions) for a path computation client.

  The security considerations are basically a punt. There's information that an operator may not want to disclose and "[c]onsideration should be given to securing this information." That seems a little thin. At the very least some explanation of how this should be done. Do only the TLVs that represent these required additions require confidentiality?
Is KARP a potential solution to this problem? If so it might be nice to explain that; if not, then why and what else would be required?

  It is a well-organized and well-written document. I would say it is "ready with nits", my nits being the thinness of the Security Consideration section.

  regards,

  Dan.